Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Qualification of the STM–passenger relationship as a contract of transport (and possibly a consumer contract) triggering contractual liability under the Code civil du Québec and potentially the Loi sur la protection du consommateur
• Determination of whether the STM breached its obligation of result to transport the passenger safely, particularly in light of malfunctioning metro doors and lack of warnings or remedial measures
• Causation between the improper functioning of the metro doors, the claimant’s fall during disembarkation, and the significant pelvic and sacral fractures and lasting functional limitations
• Assessment of the STM’s defences regarding absence of fault, non-registration of the incident, and lack of force majeure, passenger fault, or health-related cause
• Evaluation of the medical and rehabilitation evidence to quantify bodily injury, loss of enjoyment of life, pain, and functional impact
• Application of consumer protection norms (LPC arts. 37, 40, 272) alongside civil law rules to justify the quantum of damages and additional remedies such as interest and indemnity

Facts of the case

Maria-Manuel Tudella used the Montréal metro on 25 April 2023, boarding at the Guy-Concordia station and travelling toward the De l’Église station, where she intended to exit near the Ross Street access. When the train arrived at De l’Église, the doors directly in front of her did not open. Together with other passengers behind her, she was forced to move along the carriage toward the nearest set of doors that had opened to disembark. As she stepped through the functioning doors to exit onto the platform, the doors suddenly closed quickly on her, struck her, and caused her to fall forward on her left side, landing on her knees and the yellow safety strip of the platform. The train then departed while she remained on the platform in considerable pain. Incapable of standing or walking on her own, she was assisted by two other passengers who helped her up, supported her to the escalators, and escorted her to street level. One of these passengers, an employee of Verdun Hospital, arranged for a wheelchair and facilitated her transport to the Verdun Hospital emergency department. During this time, emergency services (911) twice attempted to reach her after her Apple Watch had automatically alerted Urgences-Santé to a possible fall, but she declined an ambulance because assistance and a wheelchair were already being provided. At the hospital, she was in severe pain, shaking and traumatized by the incident. A medical assessment and imaging revealed two pelvic fractures: one involving the left sacrum and another on the left side of the pubic bone. She was hospitalized from 25 April until 3 May 2023, during which she also developed a urinary tract infection. After nine days of hospitalization, she returned home and remained in convalescence for approximately three to four months. During that period, home-care services were arranged: a nurse and a physiotherapist visited her residence, and clinical notes recorded a substantial impact on her overall health and functioning. She could not perform her usual daily activities, including cooking, grocery shopping, walking, household chores, or attending yoga classes, and for several days she was unable even to stand. Prior to the accident, she had been physically active, regularly attending yoga and self-defence classes and capable of walking for more than three consecutive hours without difficulty. In May 2023, she submitted a written complaint to the Société de transport de Montréal (STM), describing the incident in detail, identifying the date, time, and location, and requesting access to surveillance footage from both the station and the train. She also indicated that she anticipated continued expenses given the expected healing period of six to eight weeks. On 16 May 2023, she sent a formal demand letter claiming CAD 15,000 from STM for her injuries and losses, and on 12 April 2024 she instituted proceedings in the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec. STM’s brief written defence denied liability, asserted that the incident was “not recorded” in its systems, and alleged that it had committed no fault capable of engaging its responsibility.

Medical and functional consequences

The medical evidence established that Tudella’s injuries and their sequelae were serious and enduring rather than minor or transient. The emergency physician, Dr. Bao C. Phan, confirmed the fractures to the pelvis and sacrum arising from the fall described by the patient, and noted that she could not bear weight on her left leg immediately after the incident. The physician anticipated a typical healing time of six to eight weeks and documented her hospitalization and associated urinary tract infection. Follow-up imaging in August 2023 showed slow healing with new calcium deposition at the fracture sites. Her family physician, Dr. Douglass Harry Dalton, noted that although she was becoming more functional and could walk with a cane thanks to physiotherapy and her own efforts, she continued to experience pain and that a complete resolution of symptoms was not expected; rather, the fractures were expected to consolidate over the subsequent months but with likely residual complaints. In 2024 and 2025, she underwent extended physiotherapy at Kinatex. Her physiotherapist, Pierre James (James) Rouzier, reported persistent pain in the back, pelvis, and hip region, reduced mobility, loss of strength, and functional limitations. Initially, she was walking with a cane and restricted to less than 20 minutes of walking. After multiple months and 26 physiotherapy sessions, she could walk over an hour without a cane but then became fatigued and required rest. The physiotherapist documented balance issues, compensatory leaning to the right side, ongoing sacroiliac symptoms, difficulty and pain with standing on one leg, recurring episodes of low back pain, and a 26% score on the Oswestry Disability Index, indicating moderate disability. Overall, the medical and therapy records supported her testimony that her quality of life and level of physical activity were significantly reduced compared to her pre-accident status.

Legal framework: contractual liability and transport obligations

The court situated STM’s responsibility primarily within the law of contract, specifically the contract of transport under the Code civil du Québec. Relying on prior authorities involving public transit operators, the judge emphasized that the relationship between STM and a fare-paying passenger is a contractual one: by purchasing a ticket or holding a transit pass, the passenger enters into a contract of transport with STM. In earlier decisions such as Ladouceur v. STM and Alahassa v. STM, courts had already recognized that public transport bodies like STM are bound by the transport provisions of the Civil Code, as well as by general contractual liability rules. Under article 2030 C.c.Q., the carrier undertakes to transport a passenger from one point to another for a price, and under article 2037 C.c.Q. the carrier is obliged to bring the passenger “sain et sauf” (safe and sound) to destination. This obligation is characterized as an obligation of result: the carrier must not merely act prudently, but must actually achieve the safe transportation result, subject only to limited exonerating causes. Article 1458 C.c.Q. states that anyone who fails to honour a contractual undertaking is liable for the resulting bodily, moral or material damage to the co-contracting party. Article 2037 C.c.Q. further specifies that the carrier must compensate the passenger for prejudice suffered unless the carrier proves that the damage resulted from force majeure, the passenger’s state of health, or the passenger’s own fault. The carrier is also liable where the prejudice arises from the health of its employees or from the state or functioning of the vehicle. The court also drew analogies with case law on air carriers and boarding or disembarkation incidents, in which courts have held that the contract of transport covers not only the movement of the vehicle but also the processes of embarkation and disembarkation. This jurisprudence reinforces that a transport provider’s obligations extend to ensuring safe boarding and alighting, and that the same narrow set of exonerations (force majeure, passenger’s health, or passenger’s fault) applies. In addition, the judgment noted that in prior class action authorization decisions, Québec courts have left open—and treated as defensible—the argument that public transit agencies like STM qualify as “commerçants” subject to the Loi sur la protection du consommateur (LPC). While there was no detailed, separate policy wording like a private insurance policy or a bespoke service agreement, the court treated the transit use as a consumer contract in substance and found it appropriate to apply articles 37, 40 and 272 LPC alongside the Civil Code provisions. Those LPC articles relate, in general terms, to a merchant’s obligation to provide services of reasonable quality and to the remedial powers of the court where a consumer’s rights have been infringed.

Application of law to the malfunctioning doors and STM’s fault

On the evidence, the court concluded that STM had not discharged its contractual duty to conduct Tudella safely from point A to point B. The malfunction of the doors—some failing to open, others closing abruptly while a passenger was in the threshold—was attributed to STM as the operator responsible for the state and functioning of the metro train. The judge found that there was no force majeure and no credible reason to attribute the incident to Tudella’s health condition or to any fault on her part: she was in good health, physically fit, and simply attempting to disembark when the doors closed on her. Nor was there evidence that she behaved recklessly or ignored any warnings. The court noted that under article 2037 C.c.Q., STM bore the burden of proving a qualifying exonerating cause, and it failed to do so. Further fault was found in STM’s operational and informational response to door failures. The evidence showed that when a train’s doors malfunction in the way described, STM does not routinely remove the train from service or place it out of operation; nor does it systematically warn passengers that some doors are defective, whether by an audible message from the operator or a written notice on the doors themselves. The judge observed that failing to take such measures increases the risk of accidents and injuries for passengers attempting to board or alight, as illustrated by this case. Accordingly, the malfunctioning doors and lack of adequate warnings or corrective action were treated as contractual faults engaging STM’s liability.

Consumer protection aspects and characterization of the relationship

While the judgment focuses primarily on the contractual obligations of a carrier under the Civil Code, it also expressly invokes articles 37, 40 and 272 of the LPC. This reflects the view—developed in other class action jurisprudence—that a public transit operator that sells transport cards or tickets to individuals can be considered a merchant providing services to consumers. In that context, the court saw no obstacle to applying consumer protection norms that require services to be of reasonable quality and authorize remedies, including monetary compensation, where a consumer is not provided with what is contractually and statutorily owed. Even though the decision does not elaborate in detail on specific “policy terms” in the way an insurance judgment might, the operative “terms” were functionally the carrier’s statutory and contractual obligation to transport passengers safely and without unjustified interruption or hazard, which the court held had been breached in the circumstances of malfunctioning metro doors and unsafe disembarkation.

Assessment of damages and final outcome

In evaluating damages, the court relied on the medical and rehabilitation evidence, the claimant’s testimony, and documentary proof of expenses. Tudella described in credible and convincing terms how the accident altered her daily life: she emphasized that before the fall she had no physical limitations, whereas afterwards she became effectively handicapped, suffering persistent pain, restricted mobility, loss of her former activities, and significant emotional distress, including feeling depressed much of the time. The medical documentation, including hospital records, physician reports, and physiotherapy notes, corroborated this narrative and demonstrated that her injuries were not minor but involved fractures, a prolonged recovery with home care, ongoing pain, moderate functional disability, and persisting limitations well beyond the initial healing window. Based on this body of proof, and taking into account the relevant provisions of the Civil Code on compensation for contractual breaches (including articles 1479, 1607, 1613, 2803 and 2804 C.c.Q.) and the remedial provision of article 272 LPC, the court found that the claimed sum of CAD 15,000 in damages was justified. The judgment therefore allowed the action in full, ordering STM to pay Tudella CAD 15,000, together with legal interest and the additional indemnity under article 1619 C.c.Q. from 16 May 2023 (the date of her formal demand) as well as costs of justice. Because interest, additional indemnity, and court costs depend on factors such as the date of actual payment and applicable tariffs, their exact total monetary value cannot be calculated from the text of the judgment alone. Nevertheless, the court’s dispositive orders clearly establish that the successful party is Maria-Manuel Tudella, and that she was awarded a principal sum of CAD 15,000 in damages, plus interest, additional indemnity, and legal costs, with the precise aggregate amount of these supplementary sums not determinable from the decision itself.